Media such as television, newspapers and social media
play a key role in the communication between scientists and the general
public. Communicating your science via the media can be positive and
rewarding by providing the inherent joy of sharing your knowledge with a
broader audience, promoting science as a fundamental part of culture and
society, impacting decision- and policy-makers, and giving you a greater
recognition by institutions, colleagues and funders. However, the
interaction between scientists and journalists is not always
straightforward. For instance, scientists may not always be able to
translate their work into a compelling story, and journalists may sometimes
misinterpret scientific output. In this paper, we present insights from
hydrologists and journalists discussing the advantages and benefits as well
as the potential pitfalls and aftermath of science–media interaction. As we
perceive interacting with the media as a rewarding and essential part of our
work, we aim to encourage scientists to participate in the diverse and
evolving media landscape. With this paper, we call on the scientific
community to support scientists who actively contribute to a fruitful
science–media relationship.

In this partisan era filled with “alternative facts”, it is essential for
science and scientists to be transparent and communicative to the general
public (Kirchner, 2017). Presenting scientific methods and the work of
scientists in general can contribute to people's understanding of the
scientific pursuit of facts and reduce scepticism towards science (e.g.
regarding climate change or vaccinations; Hamilton et al., 2015). For many
scientists, the main objectives behind engaging with the public are to
inform and educate, oppose public misinformation and generate excitement
about science (Dudo and Besley, 2016). Science communication may also combat
the prevalent stereotype of the old, white and male scientist sitting in an
ivory tower that the media have been inclined to show (Hut et al., 2016) and
thereby inspire children and minority groups to pursue a career in science.

Interacting with the media is one aspect of science communication that can
be highly rewarding for scientists and comes with numerous benefits (Fig. 1).
For example, it can improve public education and attitude towards
science, contribute to policy making and public debate, stimulate
acknowledgement as well as critical reflection of scientific work, and
increase the recognition of scientists (Dijkstra et al., 2015; Peters et
al., 2008). Accordingly, despite continuous scepticism towards media in
general, most scientists describe their personal interactions with
journalists as positive (Besley and Nisbet, 2013; Peters et al., 2008). From
our own experience, interacting with the media brings the inherent joy of
being able to communicate research findings to the broader public, thereby
promoting science as a fundamental part of society (Fig. 1). Moreover,
science journalism can result in your work having more impact on decision
and policy makers, extend your network among non-academics and give you a
greater recognition by your institution, colleagues and funding agencies,
which also increases your chances of obtaining grants.

A recent study suggests that nearly 18 % of natural science papers
(published between 1980 and 2012) remain uncited and thus go unnoticed by
the scientific community (Van Noorden, 2017). Although this is based on
citation databases with known issues (e.g. also counting publications such
as book reviews, commentaries and errata, which are not intended to be
cited), it does illustrate how many natural science papers get little
attention by scientific peers and the general public. Correspondingly, a
review of two major US media outlets has shown that while the number of
peer-reviewed articles has considerably increased in recent years, the
number of those referenced to in the media remains small (Suleski and
Ibaraki, 2010). Hence, we believe that it has become increasingly important for
scientists to acknowledge their “media responsibility” and to convey their
most relevant messages convincingly. At the same time, there is an
increasing pressure on scientists to provide newsworthy, controversial or
surprising stories (Brown, 2012), and on journalists to provide more
scientific stories in less time (Brumfiel, 2009). As a result, inaccuracies
in science reporting – albeit moderate and unintentional – can be
frequently found even in renowned media outlets (Vestergård, 2011;
Singer, 1990). Similarly, scientists are not immune to drawing misleading
or premature conclusions in order to increase the perceived relevance of
their findings (Chiu et al., 2017).

Traditionally, science journalism has been understood by many scientists as
a unidirectional process to inform and increase public understanding
(Nielsen et al., 2007), largely controlled by a few journalistic gatekeepers
that filter and process the original information for the public (Mazur,
1981). Consequently, many scientists share their findings with the media
only once they have been published in a scientific journal (Peters, 2013).
Some scientists also perceive dealing with the media as a delicate task that
can lead to improper quotations or misrepresentations of research results
(Dijkstra et al., 2015; Stewart and Nield, 2013) and decrease their
recognition among colleagues (The Royal Society, 2006; Willems, 2003).
Concurrently, many journalists describe difficulties in finding interviewees
who are willing and able to speak on pressing topics (Dijkstra et al.,
2015). Nonetheless, science–media interaction has generally increased in
recent years, in part because science communication is progressively being
considered integral to a scientist's occupation (Dijkstra et al., 2015;
Peters, 2013; Tsfati et al., 2011). Moreover, some funding bodies require
grant proposals to specify science communication and outreach activities
(e.g. obligatory for the EU Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions).
Hence, there is an essential need to reduce misunderstandings and strengthen
the science–media relationship.

Scientific knowledge is increasingly consumed online, via blogs, social
networks or news aggregators, which provide multimedia content and tools for
interaction with other users (Brossard, 2013; Peters, 2013). These online
sources offer the opportunity to rapidly access and share information among
scientific peers and with the public in an open and participatory
environment (Collins et al., 2016; Watermeyer, 2010). Compared to
traditional media, this new way of sharing information may, however,
complicate the distinction between scientific results, opinions and user
comments, while presentation type, format and user comments become more
important for the perception of scientific content (Brossard, 2013). From
the science journalist's perspective, the rise of online media has replaced
the journalists' main function as science translator and gatekeeper with
more participatory and interactive roles such as public intellectual and
educator as well as “curator” of scientific information (Fahy and Nisbet,
2011).

In light of the benefits of efficient science–media interaction, the aim of
this commentary is to encourage scientists to participate in today's diverse
media landscape. To facilitate this, we discuss the advantages and benefits
as well as the potential pitfalls and aftermath of media interaction for
scientists, with a focus on geosciences and hydrology. In order to reflect
both perspectives of science–media communication, we also include the
opinion of four journalists from different media outlets (i.e. newspaper,
online media and radio). With this commentary, we do not seek to provide a
comprehensive review of the science–media relationship, but rather discuss
the importance of strengthening the relationship between scientists and
journalists and provide concrete suggestions based on input from both
perspectives. While applicable to other scientific fields, this paper is
particularly aimed at hydrologists and geoscientists.

In Sect. 2, we highlight four examples in which media coverage of
scientists had an unforeseen or unwanted outcome. Although we perceive
working with journalists generally as a positive experience, we focus on
four challenging examples to highlight the pitfalls and help other
scientists avoid similar situations. In Sect. 3, we summarize the lessons
learned from the four examples and give some general advice on science–media
interactions from a scientist's point of view. Section 4 examines
science–media interaction from the perspective of (science) journalists and
the underlying principles of science journalism. The commentary concludes
with a synthesis of the discussion and an outlook on how to strengthen the
science–media relationship.

Dozens of papers and books have been written on effective science
communication with the media and the public (e.g. Bubela et al., 2009;
Cooke et al., 2017; Illingworth and Allen, 2016; Weigold, 2001), yet it still
remains a challenge for all parties involved (National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017). Since anecdotes can be effective
representations of broader trends (Berg and Seber, 2016), we provide several
first-hand examples of how geoscientists experienced the challenges of
science–media interaction, despite good intentions and preparation.

Flood example: exaggeration can lead to false conclusions drawn by the media

Exaggeration of scientific claims can draw media attention, but can also “go
wrong”. In the mid-1990s, the Netherlands experienced major flooding, and
Professor Hubert Savenije (Delft University of Technology) was called upon
to discuss this disaster. Contrary to Professor Savenije's expectations, the
interview, containing minor exaggerations (such as his comment that “for the
Dutch Ministry, the Meuse river starts at the border”), resulted in a front
page article suggesting that the water authorities had a poor understanding
of Dutch rivers (De Volkskrant, 1995). The ministry responsible for flood
management was highly offended, and the story was repeatedly featured on the
news for several days through various media outlets. In the end, two
follow-up articles in longer-format outlets gave Professor Savenije the
opportunity to provide a more representative and nuanced perspective
(Savenije, 1995a, b).

Fire example: unintentional early releases of sensitive topics can result in criticism and bias

During preparation of an opinion paper on ecological effects of wild and
traditionally managed fires on UK peatlands (Davies et al., 2016a), the
authors planned a press release to take the lead in the communication of
this paper. Fire management is a highly political and emotive topic in the
UK, making it crucial to control potential media attention. Due to new
regulations in the UK, designed to satisfy the UK's Research Excellence
Framework guidelines, the accepted manuscript was made publicly available
upon acceptance through a university repository. This was a result of
misunderstandings between the authors and the scientific journal about
embargo terms for the repository. Ironically, the paper that called for
informed, unbiased debate was then misrepresented and taken out of context
by groups with divergent environmental, social and political agendas. This
led to significant criticism from some commentators who claimed that the
paper had been leaked to an organization on the opposing “side” of the
debate, which in turn was used as a pretext to accuse the authors of bias
and to call their credibility into question (see Davies et al., 2016b).

Drought example: journalists might seek after provoking statements

User-friendly maps can be a valuable information tool for the media and the
public. For example, the German Drought Monitor (Zink et al., 2016) presents
near real-time, online soil moisture information in illustrative maps of
daily soil drought conditions. As a consequence, the German Drought Monitor
is frequently used by several regional and national newspapers as well as
television stations to inform the public about the recent status of soil
moisture conditions during drought events. Due to its large influence, the
scientists who had developed the German Drought Monitor were frequently
approached by journalists during the 2015 drought in Germany. Some of these
journalists tried to prompt the scientists to state that this drought was
“the worst drought ever recorded”, or that this drought could “directly be
related to climate change”, although the scientists were not able to draw
such general conclusions from their results at that stage of the event.

Groundwater example: journalists can distort results by taking them out of context

During a press conference at the European Geosciences Union (EGU) General
Assembly 2017, Professor James Kirchner (ETH Zurich) reported on a recent
paper that he co-authored (Jasechko et al., 2017). This paper stated that
fossil groundwater can contain a small fraction of water less than 50 years
old, as evidenced by detectable levels of tritium remaining from nuclear
bomb testing in the 1950s. The authors concluded from this tritium signal
that even fossil groundwater can potentially contain some percentage of much
more recent water, and thus be vulnerable to modern contamination.
Subsequently, The Daily Mail (a British tabloid) published an article that
took the statements given by Professor Kirchner out of context, complete
with the headline “Groundwater drunk by BILLIONS of people may be
contaminated by radioactive material spread across the world by nuclear
testing in the 1950s” and a stock photo of a mushroom cloud (The Daily Mail,
2017). This article further stated that tritium in drinking water is linked
to an “increased risk of mutations and cancer”, suggesting that groundwater
might be harmful to consume. The Daily Mail article greatly misled the
public by taking statements out of context, exaggerating them and drawing
false conclusions. Such articles can produce a general mistrust in public
water supply, ignoring the fact that drinking water in developed countries
is strictly regulated and extensively monitored. The Daily Mail ignored the
request by Kirchner and Jasechko that the story be corrected or retracted
(James Kirchner, personal communication, 2017).

These four examples highlight some of the challenges in the communication
between scientists and journalists that may arise from exaggeration of
scientific results, dealing with controversial topics, the risk of
miscommunication, the difficulty of communicating uncertainty in research
results, and misrepresentation and improper quotation of studies. These
challenges may make engaging with the media feel like trying to cross a
large divide on a wobbly bridge (Fig. 2).

The flood example reveals that exaggeration can help to draw media attention
but also lead to major miscommunications. Scientists should thus always be
careful when exaggerating or using strong language. In the case of papers
dealing with sensitive and controversial topics such as the fire example,
authors should ensure that embargo terms are strictly enforced in repository
depositions to prevent any preliminary release of findings. It should be
noted that, along with the negative media coverage, the paper in the fire
example was well received by many working directly in the field of fire
ecology and by land managers from organizations that are on opposing
“sides”
in the debate. In the drought example, the researchers used the opportunity
to give insights into drought mechanisms and the quantification and
benchmarking of drought events, instead of agreeing with the journalists'
suggestion that the current event could be directly attributed to climate
change. Moreover, the communication between the scientists and journalists
improved once the scientists refrained from using expert terminology (e.g.
precipitation instead of rain) and provided comprehensible examples to
explain the implications of their findings. This suggests that it can be
advisable for scientists to reflect on the detail of information they would
like to communicate to their interviewer in order to avoid misunderstandings
about their research. Hence, scientists may wish to inquire about the
journalist's background before answering specific questions, and should be
cautious when communicating uncertain conclusions from their research
results. Finally, the groundwater example shows that even with all possible
advice taken into account, some media outlets might decide to explore an
angle that is not there and scientists will not be able to entirely prevent
distorted media coverage of their research.

Complete control over communication and media attention by scientists is
unrealistic and undesirable, as we need critical and independent media to
challenge the validity of scientific studies. In addition, refuting
incorrect stories does not necessarily decrease misperceptions and can even
lead to a larger public belief in the misleading or incorrect story
(Lewandowsky et al., 2012; Nyhan and Reifler, 2010). Hence, in this case,
possibly the best strategy for scientists is to provide accurate and
truthful contributions, and to accept that misleading reporting such as in
the groundwater example can happen. Fortunately, our experience is that the
majority of media coverage is reasonable and nuanced, as is also illustrated by
other articles on the groundwater example (see, e.g., Amos, 2017).

While journalists may not be willing to send their writing before
publication, inaccuracies or faulty conclusions may be avoided if scientists
ask journalists to allow verification of direct quotes or discussion of
crucial statements from interviews. Similarly, when issuing a press release,
scientists can try to liaise closely with press officers to ensure a
balanced and accurate press release. If this is not possible – for example,
due to rigid deadlines – and a press release or journalistic report ends up
containing errors, scientists can suggest a polite correction to the
journalist or press officer.

In addition to avoiding the pitfalls illustrated here, there are also
numerous ways in which science–media communication can be actively improved. First, we
suggest that establishing a digital presence is key to increase your
visibility and accessibility as a scientist – both in the media and among
peers. Second, you can strengthen the clarity and comprehensibility of your
work by distilling your key messages in two or three concise messages and by
using real-life examples. We believe that research findings can be explained
more easily if scientists present them in natural language, use catchy
titles, and show why the public should care about the line of research and
science in general. Thirdly, you might want to include pictures and personal
details in your work and communication in order to make your story unique
and help people remember you and your research. In addition, you can add a
personal note by not only reporting the scientific facts, but also
describing any exciting events or challenges that occurred during your
research. It can be most effective to adapt a style of narrative
storytelling, where not only the base facts are important but also the plot,
so that drama and tension will keep the audience engaged with the topic (Hut
et al., 2016).

News media, especially in the fast pace of the internet age, are driven by
what is new. This implies that researchers should expect strong initial
interest in a study and a sharp decline in the days following its release.
It is crucial that scientists are available for interviews in that
high-interest period. However, especially with social media, science
communication does not end after a few days following a study's publication
in the media. Social media allow for continued engagement, both with
reporters and the general public. It can be scary terrain for scientists,
but the outcomes – exposure and helping to guide the dialogue – can be
highly beneficial. For example, Twitter messages or blog posts from
scientists can help journalists develop a relationship with scientists that
results in stories about their research. Social media also enable
journalists to learn about studies, research interests and the research
questions that scientists are most excited about. The use of blogs and
social media can, in turn, help scientists improve their communication
skills outside the realm of scientific journals.

Besides novelty, the main factors influencing news coverage are narrative,
conflict and familiarity. This means that news organizations do not simply
repeat information. Instead, they select from the abundance of news those
items that match their world views, interests or capabilities and thus
establish narratives and context around news. Scientific stories themselves
are also narratives, and the easiest form of narrative is the conflict
narrative, i.e. side A vs. side B or new idea vs. existing policy. In
particular, research that fits existing conflict narratives or is familiar
to the reader is more likely to be picked up (see also Downs, 2014; Stewart
and Nield, 2013). For example, a narrative might arise from conflicts
between local residents of a flood-prone area who favour the reinforcement
of floodwalls and embankments along the river, and advocators of a more
“natural” flood management who advise using the residential area as the
natural floodplain of the river. Another example of a conflict narrative
that has been frequently used (while being simplistic) is the “farmer vs.
fish” narrative, which refers to water use restrictions for farmers to
alleviate the pressure on natural water resources during severe droughts in
California (e.g. Kloberdanz, 2008). Therefore, as narratives will help
conveying your message, prepare for an interview with a journalist by
determining the unique points, societal relevance and narrative thread of
your research story. The more enthusiastic you are about your topic, the
easier it will be for journalists to convey this enthusiasm to the public.

Journalists have to ensure that their article has a clear, striking message
that will grab the reader's attention. Otherwise, the article might not be
published or the message may become so weak that the reader will not read
the entire article. For journalists, style is just as important as content,
whereas for academic publications, content takes priority and style is
defined by academic writing standards. Therefore, be well prepared to
present clear results that back up a strong message before contacting a
journalist. Good narratives or storylines can serve as discussion starter
and facilitate communication between you and the journalist during the
interview.

Journalists often ask different researchers to comment on a study in order
to obtain an independent second opinion. This is standard practice for good
science journalism and helps journalists better assess the novelty and
impact of the research findings and assure themselves of their validity. For
example, second opinions were highly valuable in the context of a study that
reported a substantial increase in break rates of water pipes in recent
years (Folkman, 2018). After scientists who were asked for a second opinion
had raised concerns about the scientific methods, the journalist refrained
from his plan to report on the study. Moreover, journalists value scientists
who are not afraid to discuss uncertainty, and who are forthright about any
assumptions their research is based on. As scientists are accustomed to
collaborative writing and peer review, they sometimes offer to review quotes
or the entire story before publication. However, journalists, valuing
independence, are generally reluctant to send quotes, let alone the entire
story. Depending on organization policies or personal preference, they might
only send the parts of the article that quote the scientist directly.
Establishing trust between journalists and researchers is particularly
important in this regard.

One of the biggest obstacles to effective communication with the media might
be scientific training itself. As historian Naomi Oreskes emphasized at the
American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting 2016, the key to good
communication is keeping the message simple and telling a memorable story by
mentioning something personal or evoking emotions (Kalaugher, 2016).
However, to many scientists, “simple feels simplistic” and stories feel made
up, according to Oreskes. She believes that scientists often think that
research should be impersonal, unemotional and dispassionate, whereas
scientific studies have actually shown that emotion is an essential part of
reasoning (e.g. Kahan, 2010, 2015). Consequently, scientists may tend to
provide stories lacking personal anecdotes and intriguing narratives, which
can further complicate the communication between journalists and scientists
(Fig. 2). Therefore, as a scientist, do not be afraid of including emotional
aspects by, for instance, showing how scientific findings could affect
people's lives. At conferences and other science–media events, you can seize
the opportunity to approach journalists after your presentation to ask
whether the societal implications of your findings are clear, particularly
if these could not be addressed in detail due to the scientific nature of
the presentation. In general, you can and should practice talking about your
research to friends, relatives or strangers, which gives you instant
feedback on the aspects that are most interesting to non-scientists.

We believe that both scientists and journalists have a duty to enhance and
strengthen the current science–media relationship. Therefore, it is
essential to understand what aspects in this relationship are most important
for scientists and journalists. We propose the following to facilitate the
dialogue between science and the media. First, we as scientists should be
well informed about the type of audience for which a journalist reports. For
example, if you are interviewed for a magazine read by technical experts,
keep in mind that this magazine requires a different content and style than
a short news brief. Second, while scientists tend to look at things from
their own area of expertise, it is essential for good science reporting to
zoom out and look at the bigger picture. If you fail to put your research
into perspective, it will be the journalist's responsibility to do so –
which can increase the risk of distortions or faulty conclusions. Finally,
be prepared to discuss the backstory of your research findings. Reporters
ask for narratives and like to personalize your research by highlighting,
for example, what drives your interest in the topic and what obstacles were
encountered during your research project. These suggestions may serve as a
basic recipe for successful communication with journalists (Fig. 3), which
you can amend according to your taste and the specific conditions of your
interaction with the media.

As the media world may be uncharted waters for many scientists, our
geoscience community needs to continuously encourage scientists to get
involved in the media landscape and actively contribute to a better
science–media relationship. We should support and reward scientists that
communicate research to the media and the public. One way to do so might be
the use of “media altmetrics” that measure a scientist's engagement with the
media and public, similarly to existing metrics that count the number of
news articles a paper has been featured in (see Priem, 2013). We endorse
initiatives that aim for formal recognition of science communication as an
important scientific activity besides teaching and research (e.g. Rathenau
Instituut, 2017).

Communication skills can be practiced and developed in science communication
training, where scientists are provided with the tools they need to
effectively communicate with the media. Hence, we would like to stress the
importance of media training for scientists in their early-career stage
through their institutes or organizations. We strongly encourage scientists
engaging with the media to seek advice at their institutional press office
or from other professional resources such as the Science Media Centre
(http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/, last access: 15 May 2018), and to inquire about science
communication courses offered by graduate schools, universities or funding
bodies (e.g. courses for grant holders of the European Research Council or
the UK's Natural Environment Research Council). We also propose organization
of joint media training workshops and informal networking sessions for both
scientists and journalists, which has already become part of the programme
of the EGU General Assembly in recent years (e.g. the short course
“Communicating geoscience to the media”; Ferreira et al., 2018). Large
geoscience conferences such as the EGU General Assembly or the AGU Fall
Meeting are suitable platforms for such workshops. Moreover, while most
discussions in media rooms revolve around the latest studies, conferences
and science–media networking events are also the place to develop
longer-term relationships between scientists and journalists. In summary,
the pillars that we believe support the bridge and facilitate communication
between scientists and journalists are an atmosphere of mutual trust, the
effort to provide scientific stories with a good narrative and personal
aspects, science communication training for scientists and joint media
training workshops, assistance from press officers, and support for science
communication by the scientific community (Fig. 4).

Reporters are often (and sometimes justifiably) criticized for repeatedly
referring to the same scientists for a particular topic. This results both
from the journalists' preference for renowned scientists, and from the
tendency of public relation departments to favour these scientists over less
established ones (Peters, 2013). Hence, to broaden the field of experts that
can contribute to the public dialogue, the scientific community needs to
promote the voices of underrepresented groups (e.g. women, minority groups
and early-career scientists) in the conversation. Similarly, universities
and science organizations should maintain lists of experts that are
available to comment on particular topics and can be approached at
scientific conferences. Fortunately, many scientific institutes have such
experts available and the American Geophysical Union regularly provides
lists of scientific experts, such as, for instance, for the 2017 Climate Science
Special Report (USGCRP, 2017).

We believe that social media use as well as science communication by
university departments and science organizations are crucial aspects in
reinforcing the science–media relationship, as they increase and facilitate
the interaction between scientists, journalists and the public. Social media
in particular offer the opportunity to share information with a broad
audience, facilitate networking between journalists and scientists, and
foster collaboration and innovation through direct feedback from the public
(Hunter, 2016). They are low-threshold means of engagement with the public
and offer a more democratic and participatory way of communication compared
to traditional media, which may encourage young scientists especially to get
involved in science communication. Last but not least, effective
science–media interaction also depends on engaged science communication
officers who are aware of the current research questions and projects and
can, based on that, encourage and support scientists to participate in
science outreach. Hence, we propose further investment in science
communication infrastructure to share best practices on how to inform the
media and the general public about scientific outcomes.

We hope that the insights and advice shared in this collaborative effort of
scientists and journalists will inspire scientists to get involved in
science–media communication, and ultimately strengthen the dissemination of
scientific results to the public. Both scientists and journalists have
emphasized the importance of building narratives around scientific facts and
using emotional and personal stories to convey information. This shows that
the traditional roles of scientists and journalists in science communication
are changing from a unidirectional dissemination of scientific knowledge
towards a relation where scientists and journalists can better understand
each other's disciplines and work more closely together. We hope that this
commentary will further contribute to a more symbiotic relation between
science and the media in today's partisan world.

Our commentary is inspired by the EGU General Assembly
2017 session “How my water research made the news”, in which hydrologists
shared their experiences with communicating science via the media. We thank
James Kirchner, Bárbara Ferreira, Sam Illingworth, Andri Bryner, G. Matt Davies
and the editor Hannah Cloke for their valuable comments, which improved this paper
significantly. We are grateful to Cher van den Eng for providing the
figures. This project was in part funded by the European Union's Horizon
2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie
grant agreements no. 641939 (Andrea Popp) and no. 706428 (Cathelijne R. Stoof).
Stefanie R. Lutz was
financially supported by the European Union under the Seventh Framework
Programme (Grant agreement no.
603629-ENV-2013-6.2.1-Globaqua).

The article processing charges for this open-access publication were covered by a Research Centre of the Helmholtz Association.

Folkman, S.: Water Main Break Rates In the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive
Study, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Faculty Publications, Paper 174,
available at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/mae_facpub/174,
last access: 19 June 2018.

Suleski, J. and Ibaraki, M.: Scientists are talking, but mostly to each
other: a quantitative analysis of research represented in mass media, Public
Underst. Sci., 19, 115–125, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662508096776, 2010.

Media play a key role in the communication between scientists and the general public. However, the interaction between scientists and journalists is not always straightforward. In this opinion paper, we present insights from hydrologists and journalists into the benefits, aftermath and potential pitfalls of science–media interaction. We aim to encourage scientists to participate in the diverse and evolving media landscape, and we call on the scientific community to support scientists who do so.

Media play a key role in the communication between scientists and the general public. However,...